Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-055JNLIGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Graham-Jackson v. Martin and Rock Prairie Farms, LLC

CA Wisconsin · Aug 7, 2025

Jurisdiction
state
Court
CA Wisconsin
Record ID
graham-jackson-v-martin-and-rock-prairie-farms-llc-2025-08-07
Observed outcome
The court affirmed the dismissal of the underlying claims and imposed a $500 monetary sanction plus a mandatory affidavit requirement for future filings.
Known monetary consequence
$500
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The court imposed a $500 monetary sanction and a mandatory future affidavit requirement on a pro se litigant for repeatedly citing non-existent or irrelevant legal authorities in appellate briefs, in violation of Wisconsin appellate rules.

Why the decision-maker cared

The court exercised its inherent power to ensure the efficient administration of justice and control its docket, noting that the litigant's failure to verify authorities shifted significant work to the court and opposing counsel, and that the violations persisted after notice.

Why it matters now

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Monetary sanctions of $500 and requirement for future affidavit on legal citations in CA Wisconsin, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Pro Se
  • Fake Citations
  • Misrepresented Authority
  • Contract
  • Appellate
  • Monetary
AI attribution
Unspecified
Recorded tool
Unidentified
Known monetary consequence
$500
Procedural posture
Appellate review of a circuit court dismissal order, with concurrent adjudication of sanctions for briefing rule violations.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

Litigant claimed reliance on public databases and secondary resources.

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
  2. Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
  3. Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
  4. Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.